Jharkhand High Court
Md. Ataur Rahman vs Sri D.K. Tewari on 29 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cont. Case (Civil) No. 277 of 2019
Md. Ataur Rahman ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
Sri D.K. Tewari,
Chief Managing Director cum chairman,
Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. Ranchi & Anr. ..... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA
--------
For the Petitioners : M/s J.P. Jha, Sr. Advocate
& Aishwarya Prakash, Advocate.
For the JUVNL : Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate.
-------
The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsels for the
parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities
are good.
-------
06/ 29.01.2021 The petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.5952
of 2007, for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer and Chief
Engineer, as he was denied such promotions on certain grounds. The Writ Court,
by order dated 9th August, 2017, passed the following order:-
"10. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, the
impugned order vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition, is quashed
and set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondents to
consider the case of the petitioner afresh for promotion to the
post of Superintending Engineer and Chief Engineer with effect
from the date juniors to the petitioner namely Sri Parmanand
Singh and Ramagya Singh in the rank of Electrical Executive
Engineer were given promotion and the case of the petitioner be
considered within a period of two months from the date of
receipt/communication of the copy of the order."
2. Yet by another order dated 2.2.2018, passed in C.M.P. No. 379
of 2017, the following order was passed:-
"This CMP has been filed for modification/correction of
para nos.1 and 10 of the judgment dated 09.08.2017 passed in
W.P.(S) No.5952 of 2007 by this Court, in which, the words 'and
promotional benefits' after the word 'promotion' which have
inadvertently been left out be read.
Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner submits that the word 'and promotional benefits' after
the word 'promotion' be inserted in Para nos.1 and 10 of the
judgment dated 09.08.2017 and the same has to be corrected.
Let the words 'and promotional benefits' be read after the
word 'promotion' occurring in second line of para-1 and in
fourth line of para-10. The order dated 09.08.2017 passed in
W.P.(S) No.5952 of 2007 is modified to the extent indicated
above.
Accordingly, C.M.P. no.379 of 2017 stands allowed."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought on record by way of
supplementary affidavit, the order dated 16.12.2020, whereby the shadow post
has been created and the petitioner has been given the pensionery benefits only
from the date of issuance of this order. This certainly cannot be the compliance
of the order, passed by the Writ Court, as there were specific orders and
clarifications made by the Writ Court, as quoted above.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite parties prays for further time for
seeking instructions and filing show cause.
5. At the request of learned counsel for the opposite parties, put up
this matter after six weeks for substantial compliance of order, passed by the
Writ Court. If the order of the Writ Court is not substantially complied with,
serious view shall be taken in the matter.
6. Let this matter be again listed on 12 th of March, 2021, by which
date, it is expected that the order, passed by the Writ Court shall be fully
complied with.
7. Let a copy of this order be made available to the learned counsel for
the opposite parties for the needful.
( H. C. Mishra, J.)
Amitesh/-
